The evils of Social Liberal Imperialism

What do you get when you combine the pomposity of pseudo patriotism with imperialist aggression and the hypocrisy of the so-called Western values? You get social liberal imperialism.

Social liberal Imperialism has become so widespread in the 21st century that it is amazing that hardly anybody talks about it. It manifests itself everywhere, from mindless every-day human interaction in Western societies to illegal interventionist wars the West continues to wage in sovereign lands and everywhere and in all manner of ways in between. Interventionism in the name of democracy has become the ultimate definition of today’s social liberal imperialism. The foreign nations and societies that have fallen victims to this ideology are neither equipped for, nor necessarily wanting of this Western style dictatorship. The illegal wars have not only become ingrained within so-called Western values, they have become religion; a way of life.

Social Liberal Imperialism is largely a late 19th century British development whereby those who were liberal in terms of social affairs, legalistic views of the state as well as economics, nevertheless felt that states abroad, whether it be Ireland or India were neither capable, competent nor responsible enough to govern themselves. At the turn of the 20th century, many liberal imperialist thinkers such as Cecil Rhodes began to write elaborate justifications for Imperialism based on supposed civilising values of the British culture. Late modern Liberal imperialism is distinct from traditional Conservative Imperialism which if bothered to justify itself, would do so by invoking the Melian Dialogue, which boils down to ‘might makes right’. Thus, traditional conservative imperialism, in the Western sense, is more honest than the pseudo-scientific attempt to universally rank cultures without any consideration for manifest realities.

Post WW2 Britain became a more-humble state, though gradually the liberal imperialist mindset began to reemerge, finally reaching its late modern zenith with Tony Blair.

Social liberal imperialism can be applied to all modern Western states who unilaterally invade, occupy, murder and steal resources. There is a slight difference, however between the American variety of social liberal imperialism and the British one: the Americans are neither ashamed, nor careful to conceal greed. The intent is clear. The modern British imperialists, however have deluded themselves into believing that invading and occupying foreign lands and people is the righteous thing to do, that it is their moral duty to educate and govern less sophisticated cultures. They are true believers, and far more dishonest. Whilst Americans do not hide their aggression, the British hide behind it, justifying the unjustifiable. Tony Blair truly believed invading Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do, he still justifies it to this day, while George Bush has partly admitted that it was a mistake. That said, the same cannot be said about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is the perfect example of someone who achieved high position through adopting so called liberal values. Yet nevertheless many in America, including former democratic voters, continue to hate him for the simple reason that he is black, even though he adopted policies that the racist Cecil Rhodes would have been proud of. In this sense, Obama is the quintessential American success story. He lied his way to the top and achieved it. In Britain, a character like Obama could achieve junior membership of a private members club at best, whose elder members would continue to tell racist jokes behind his back.

It is difficult to understand just which values the West is so keen to export to foreign lands. The growing trend of Cultural Marxism in the West within the last 50 years or so, Globalism and open borders have resulted in a fractured society, one of sectarianism and identity politics. What are those British values that our politicians are so keen to export? And what makes them think that Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians want or need them?

What is wrong with Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian cultures? Are they not good enough? Not sophisticated enough? Not modern enough? Could the real reason that the West continues to support regressive movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East be to suppress the rise of Arab nationalism? Could this be because modernity and secularism are privileges reserved for the West? I believe it is. It is the western imperial master-slave mentality. But there is more. The Western neo-imperialists are fearful that if these countries adopt a more modern system that is successful and conscious of its own national pride, the people will seek to extract vengeance on the West. They unconsciously expect those in the parts of the world that retained their values during various occupations to be as sinister and duplicitous as they are. If only they knew they had nothing to fear. Nasser didn’t want to make England a protectorate of Egypt nor did Saddam Hussein want Europe and the US to become ruled by the Iraqi branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath party.

The glaringly obvious truth is that, the West no longer has a distinct culture as such. One could justifiably say that Syrian culture is far more civilised, far more cohesive and healthy than that of Britain or America. Syrians are patriotic, they believe Syria is the best place on earth, but they do not want another Syria elsewhere, and they respect people from other nations who are equally patriotic. In Britain, while it is perfectly acceptable for the British to express a love of their country, the moment a foreigner shows any sign of patriotism, it becomes a competition, be it of a subtle or aggressive kind, and the superiority complex of the British rears its ugly head. Why? Because in the minds of the British social liberal imperialists, British culture is superior to all. Believing one’s country is superior, is not a problem in itself, certainly not on a personal level. But there is something very wrong when it is implied that only a specific country is worthy of patriotism itself.

Oddly, and I can only imagine due to the influence of Cultural Marxism and Globalism, in some distinctly English liberal circles, it is frowned upon to express national pride. Yet, those who frown are quick to act superior nevertheless, though they are careful not to appear too brash. You wouldn’t find the likes of Prince Phillip in such circles. Yet, at the same time, one has only to look at the demographics of the London liberal elite, to understand that even these so-called liberals stick with their kind. If one of the tribe dares to criticise their system, they will be called eccentric and perhaps even ‘not one of us’, but if a foreigner does so, he or she will be called stupid, crazy or in need of education.

Cecil Rhodes famously said ‘Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life’.

What he failed to do is explain ‘Why’. The truth of the matter is, the sun is setting in the West. But the West is not yet ready to accept this grim reality, much less realise why. Neo-Imperialism, Cultural Marxism, Globalism, open borders, etc have destroyed national sovereignty, culture and pride. It has left people confused about their individual and collective identity. Anyone can be anything in Western society, indeed people are encouraged to be anything other than who they really are. All this at the expense of basic human needs which are denied to many in this so called civilised and progressive West.

No culture is objectively superior to another and nothing can justify wars. Cultures are merely different and people can decide on an individual basis what they think is the best. When a society has no definable culture however, one ought to fix matters at home rather than being so bold as to export a declining culture using force. A state can be a super power, without undermining a less powerful one. Russia is one such state.